Title
China Air Lines, Ltd. vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 45985
Decision Date
May 18, 1990
China Air Lines is not held liable for the negligence of PAL and its employee, Espiritu, in a case where a passenger missed his flight due to an erroneous entry on his ticket, resulting in PAL and Espiritu being jointly and severally liable for the damages caused by Espiritu's negligence.
Font Size

Case Digest (G.R. No. 45985)

Facts:

  • Jose E. Pagsibigan, vice-president and general manager of Rentokil (Phils.) Inc., purchased a plane ticket for a Manila-Taipei-Hongkong-Manila flight on June 4, 1968.
  • The ticket was issued by Philippine Air Lines (PAL) through Transaire Travel Agency, represented by Cecille Baron.
  • CAL Ticket No. 017991 was issued on June 6, 1968, indicating a departure from Manila to Taipei on June 10, 1968, at 5:20 PM.
  • Upon arrival at the airport on June 10, Pagsibigan learned that the flight had actually departed at 10:20 AM.
  • PAL arranged for Pagsibigan to fly to Taipei the next day, June 11, 1968.
  • Pagsibigan sought P125,000 in moral damages and P25,000 for attorney's fees, claiming embarrassment and mental anguish due to the error.
  • The trial court found Espiritu solely responsible and awarded Pagsibigan P20,000 in exemplary damages, dismissing the case against CAL.
  • Both PAL and Espiritu appealed, while CAL argued it should not be liable for PAL's actions.
  • The Court of Appeals modified the ruling, awarding P20,000 as nominal damages and holding CAL jointly liable with PAL and Espiritu.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • The Supreme Court ruled that China Air Lines, Ltd. is not liable for the negligence of Philippine Air Lines, Inc. and Roberto Espiritu.
  • The damages awarded to Pagsibigan were modified to P10,000 as nominal damages, with PAL and Espiritu jointly and several...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • The decision was based on the principle of vicarious liability under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, which holds employers liable for their employees' negligent acts within the scope of their duties.
  • The court determined that CAL did not have an employer-employee relationship with PAL or Espiritu, thus it could not be held ...continue reading

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.

© 2024 Jur.ph. All rights reserved.